The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1887-01-11

4
cases, and they might also be able tc
show that they were not similar, i
that was the word used. But the
words substantially similar,n impart
enough latitude to the comparison tc
enable the courts to exercise sound dis
erection and common sense in passing
upon cases that may arise. So far as
any one railroad company is concerned
therefore, the sum which it may charge
for a haul from one end of It's
road to the other end, becomes the
maximum amount it can charge for
any shorter haul over that road in the
same direction and under similar cir
cumstances and conditions, when a
shorter distance is included within q
longer, but the question that seems to
trouble those who object to the section
as it stands, is whether the maximum
| thus fixed is the amount which the
railway company charges upon ship
ments originating at a and destined to
points on its own line, or whether the
maximum is which it accepts as its
share of through rate upon ship
ments passing over the road which or
iginates it, or are destined to points
on another road. 1t seems clear
to me, that there can be but one answer
to that question. In the first place the
measure of charge that may be, made
for a shorter distance is the sum that
is charged for longer distance over the
same line, and under substantially
similar circumstances and conditions
The rates fixed by railroad company
between points upon its own road are
clearly rates upon one line or, in the
terms of the bill: The same line" The
railroad ol-o ond
troll rates upon its own road@nd the Sec
tons say that in making such rates the
short haul principle shall be observed.
The railroad company cannot control
rates over the road of another company,
but when two or more companies unite
on making joint rates over their re-
spectiVe roads, they become, in the eye
OF this bill, one line, and this section
says that the short. haul principle must
be observed lno making rates over that
line, the two or more roads composing
it being, within the meaning of this
section, the same line. So far as such
joint rates are concerned, the word rail
road is used throughout the bill and
the word line is used only in this
section, and the courts will be
bound to assume that the word line
means something different from the
word railroad, or it would not have
been used in this one instance, where
the word railroad would naturally
have been used if something different
had not been intended. The word line
means a railroad or. combination of
railroads. It means route.
Section OF the bill requires the CARR
age of freight to be rated as one
continuous carriage from the place of
shipment to the destination" and this
could not be done in the case OF ship
ment over the connecting road if the
word used IN this section was
railroad" instead of cline" The
joint through rates which are made by
two or more railroadscompanies between
points upon their respective roads are
made over an entirely different and
distinct line from that over which any
one of the companies individually
makes rates and they are also made
under different circumstances and
conditions" from these which govern
and determine the rates over single
railroad. The two transactions are'j
separate and distinct, neither being
necessarily governed by the other.
Furthermore, the making of joint
through rates is specifically recognized
by the bill in the section |
requiring publicity of rates and |
nowhere in the bill can any
thing be- found in relation to a di-
vision of the joint rate by the connect |
ing roads. l am satisfied, therefore, |
that the only construction that is war
ranted by the language of the section, is
the one l have given it, and that in
stead of requiring the rates to be meas
ured by the per centage of the through |
rate which the road accepts, or of re-
curing through rates over connecting |
roads 10 be an aggregation OF the local
rates over each road, as some have
claimed, the section, as it stands, simply
requires that each railroad company
shall observe the short haul principle
as to its own rates, and that the same
principle shall also be observed by
railroad as to the JOINT
through rates between the points upon
their roads, agreed upon by such COM
OinatiOn.
Mr.. George objectedto the interpreta-
ton Put upon the words, under like cir
and conditions" by Mr..
Cullom. He did not believe that it was
he true, legitimate Interpretation.
In reply to question by Mr.. Aldrich,
Mr.. Harris (Tennessee) undertook
" pam dilu uSt6uu IOuI III !
section of the bill There was, he said,
our distinct and independent lines OF
abroad between san Francisco and
New York. Tuese became one line by
contract and agreement between
hem. If they charged 500 car from
IAN Francisco to New York, that was
he maximum r te which they could
barge from Ogden or Omaha to New
iork
Mr.. Aldrick-Theu they could charge
SO car from Ogden or Omaha or
}uffalo -----...------ .-----.-... a-.--
Mr.. Harris-There is no reason to be
ound IN this bill why they may not
barge (from any intermediate point
Ip to the maximum of the through
harge, except that the charge must be
easonable.
Mr.. Stanford argued against the bill. J
lie said that it tended not only TO
revent competition by railroads, but
exhibited tendency to foster water
Fays 10 the prejudice of the railroad
interests. 1t the object were to en-
ance the water lines at the expense
+ the railroads, he didn't know how
he bill could be framed to secure such
n object better than this bill. The
ailway business was legitimate, there
ould be no Justification for depriving ]
be owners of railroads OF control OF